In short, I think that if there was a /32 allocated to private addressing, that is strongly labeled "do NOT route on the public Internet", we might find that most networks administrators could not care less about site-locals.
This wouldn't actually be any different than site-locals, except for being a /32 instead of a /9 or /10, or whatever site-locals are... The main problems with site-locals are caused by the fact that the same site-local prefix is used in multiple sites, creating ambiguity. Additional problems are caused by the assumption that a single host may be in more than one site at the same time (creating even more ambiguity). Changing what number we use for the prefix and/or the length of the prefix doesn't change anything... Margaret -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
